In a country where sometimes people get shot simply because they are walking down a street that "doesn't belong to them" you'd think that at least one murdering psycho (or probably not a psycho actually) would just open fire.

While I really don't like WBBC, I have to admit that they do have a right to say what they want.

But I would still chastise them for being so heartless and arrogant, especially to a grieving family. I think the father should've been compensated for defamation of character, because they have no (actual) evidence for their claims.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

The placards read "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "America is
Doomed," "Don't Pray for the USA," "Thank God for IEDs," "Fag Troops,"
"Semper Fi Fags," "God Hates Fags," -- For a group that hates America, they sure loved it when it came to their constitutional right to free speech - hypocrites!

But I am still not fully understanding how protesting at funerals can still be within the lines of freedom of speech.

If it were just them standing on a corner with their hate signs that's one thing, but to attend a private ceremony uninvited and to emotionally traumatize the bereaved? I say the families who were tormented by the WBBC all collectively sue these depraved motherfuckers for emotional damages.

I don't hold a lot of respect for the USSC. They prove themselves to be for sale to the highest office of late it seems, as the contemporary Jurists at the bench seem to not be consistent in interpreting the law(s), when a present day case is brought before them.

Case in point and amazingly enough a decision arrived at before most of the old munyers on today's SCOTUS were seated. (At least, let's hope! ) *Highlight font my edit*

(Sic)"...In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas." (Source)

There is without question no doubt the Westboro bunch commit hate speech at every event they dare attend. So that the 1942 decision bringing HS into a matter of law and outside First Amendment protection, is not applicable in this recent decision is beyond me.

Then again there is that old wisdom that says, especially when Justice Scalia has said the U.S. Constitution is a dead document, that it's not a matter of the law as written, but rather the power is contained in how the law is interpreted. And who has that power but the USSC jurists?
And who can ever hope to overturn them? (No one!)

The lovely retort to this insult to decency is, it truly isn't freedom to speak when Westboro has to apply for permission to. (i.e. Permits)

Ergo, all a city council has to do when Westboro applies next time is have the balls the USSC lacks when issuing the permit for WBC hate speech, and recall that the First amendment does not provide an inalienable right to proximity to those to whom the church psycho's wish to screed, when exercising the right to (hate) speak and assemble!

Thus, a permit to freely assemble and spew hate can certainly be issued miles from the funeral they wish to attend! After all, Westboro applies and requests permission to assemble at a designate location. But that property being public land is solely arrived at at the discretion of those who are empowered to designate who is permitted to gather and protest on it.
So, one would think Westboro can ask to gather across from a church where a funeral is being conducted, but there is no guarantee they are entitled to that boon considering the local taxpayer citizens in that county/city/town/State, are the one's to whom it belongs. One would think then that those grieving citizen tax payers are entitled not to be trespassed upon, while the permission to be trespassed against by hate speech can indeed be granted under the First, elsewhere.

They're free to speak, but nothing in the Constitution says they're entitled to speak directly to grieving American's from a point on public property.

Westboro has no right to be tolerated! They have gone so far as to seek permission to pursue the funeral procession, as mourners make their way to the cemetery! (Denied thus far, thank goodness!) Which indicates they, as do their signs also provide as evidence, know no bounds to indecency or to the free exercise of hate speech.
However, now that SCotUS has given more rights to hate than to grieving decent American's, that will certainly stand to change in future, I'm sure.

Quote:While I really don't like WBBC, I have to admit that they do have a right to say what they want.

They have every right to say what they want, but the question is 'where'. I consider funerals to be a private event where freedom of speech doesn't fully apply. Bars have the right to remove louts, so I think families should be able to remove louts too from their private events.

Quote:While I really don't like WBBC, I have to admit that they do have a right to say what they want.

They have every right to say what they want, but the question is 'where'. I consider funerals to be a private event where freedom of speech doesn't fully apply. Bars have the right to remove louts, so I think families should be able to remove louts too from their private events.

In the case of funerals I think families should have the right to remove louts... Viking style

Quote:While I really don't like WBBC, I have to admit that they do have a right to say what they want.

They have every right to say what they want, but the question is 'where'. I consider funerals to be a private event where freedom of speech doesn't fully apply. Bars have the right to remove louts, so I think families should be able to remove louts too from their private events.

IMO their rights to free speech should end where my rights to have a private service begin. What about my rights to not be subjected to their hate speech and verbal and visual assaults, at the funeral of my loved one? Let them protest if they feel they must. Establish a perimeter around the area of the funeral into which they are not allowed. I think some states have done just this.

They truly are hateful people. If there was a hell, they would certainly be destined for it.

My reason for being is to serve as a cat cushion. That is good enough for me.